But this answer is not acceptable to the Powers of Political Correctness.
Hilton said the reason Miss California lost the Miss USA pageant is not because she was against gay marriage, but because she was "a dumb bitch". Apparently the forces of tolerance will not tolerate anything less than pure and 100% doctrinal conformity.
Normally a mealy-mouthed gossiper would be called out by Polite Society on his tantrum speak, but the main stream media, specifically Larry King in this case, allows this hateful name calling a pass because it is politically correct, though those who have eyes can see the true colors of this rainbow.
55 comments :
Aside from the whole issue, why should a celebrity gossip blogger be judging a beauty pageant? Didn't know from prior this incident, but the man really isn't a classy fellow. My life has been much better since I stopped watching those TV tabloid shows in the evenings.
Let's see if we can agree on this definition from wikipedia.com:
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting[citation needed]. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.
If hate speech is intended to degrade a person or group of people, then if it is only based on certain criteria, that means it is rationed, and those who control the rationing control who is labeled a hater.
Therefore if we as a society are going to debate fairly this topic, we need to answer the following questions;
1. should we limit the basis for intention of degrading speech, i.e. is speech intended to degrade a person or group only hate speech if it encompasses one of following bases; race, gender, age, ethnicity...etc?
2. If a member of the base group, i.e. any individual of a race, gender, age bracket, ethnicity...etc offended by certain speech, is that evidence of intend to degrade on the part of the person uttering the speech?
3. Should we as a society seek to sanction or legally proscribe and or punish said hate speech, and if yes, what is the punishment and who decides?
Perhaps I should have asked you since you seem to be stuck on the term. What is your definition of hate speech?
Hosty writes, "Let's see if we can agree on this definition from wikipedia.com:
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion..."
And using the phrase "dumb bitch" to degrade a woman who opposes same-sex "marriage" because she was raised a Christian doesn't constitute "hate speech"?
If there is any doubt that Perez Hilton is a Christianophobe, let's recall that the former title of his Blog (the one where he referred to Carrie Prejean as a "dumb bitch") was sixsixsix.com
I believe the laws apply equally to us all, and what is hate speech for one group is hate speech for another. Hilton fits the term hate speech and I feel no need to defend his actions simply because he is gay.
On the other hand if he had simply asked the question he did and not respond the way he did I would not call him hateful.
As far as your other point about his blog's name formerly sixsixsix.com, it certainly seems anti-Christian.
I feel the need to speak up, once more.
When people are speaking in terms of marriage, we are speaking in terms of a behavior (an activity), not one personal orientation. We're talking about physical conjugal sex (copulation/penal/vaginal intercourse), that's why we don't like it when siblings get married because we don't want siblings having sex with one another, it's a behavior not just a committed relationship.
Why do we recognize marriage, because human sexuality is rooted in procreation, our hormones present themselves in modes to procreate and raise children. While some individuals, to no fault of their own, are sexually oriented not have such feelings within in, we can not as a society deny what marriage did. It allowed an individual to be raised and cared for both biological parents, they two people, the man and woman, who had sex and conceived the individual.
Marriage, as one man and one woman, is a pre-christian concept, that is celebrated as a fertility rite by even pagan cultures. I say this, because May 1st pagans will celebrate Beltrane with 'the Great Rite', basically the female and male coming together as, sacred and holy marriage. It's is a rather interesting holiday to read on, I wouldn't be surprised if some pagan would argue the Catholic Church stole their beliefs on sexuality and fertility.
http://www.paganwiki.org/index.php?title=Great_Rite
"The Great Rite is a fertility ritual in Witchcraft wherein the presiding Priest and Priestess enact the sacred marriage of the Goddess and God. In some traditions, this is a literal sexual joining; in others, the sexual partnership is represented by dipping the wand or athame into the chalice to signify the sacred union of male and female. The Great Rite symbolizes the act of divine creation through the union of the Virgin Goddess with the Horned God.
The tradition of the Great Rite stems from the Hieros Gamos, or sacred marriage. This is an ancient ritual in which participants sought religious illumination through sexual intercourse. Participants in the Hieros Gamos took on the roles and characteristics of deities, and these sexual unions were meant to bring both literal and symbolic fertility to the community.
A variety of ritual occasions may call for the Great Rite to be performed, but it is most commonly enacted at handfastings and during the festival of Beltane. There are a variety of ritual texts that can be used in the Great Rite. Many variants include the Five-Fold Kiss as a recognition of the sacredness of sexuality and the body. "
The point is human sexuality as man and woman, with the potential of being fertile is one of universal natural law, whether you be Catholic, Pagan, or an atheist who accepts the theory of evolution. No fictional law made of man, under the term marriage equality exists.
To say to acknowledge the birds & the bees is a 'hate crime' is exploiting marriage for a non-marital purpose. I know John who have devoted your time to marriage equality, but I hope one day with a lot of soul searching that the needs of homosexuals isn't about calling those who understand the purpose and function of marriage individuals who commit 'hate crimes'.
You can't change reality!
To acknowledge that every individual's life is sacred and of value (including homosexuals), we have to acknowledge that the act that brings them into this world is sacred and of value. To have that involves heterosexuality, no homosexuality, even now with the assisted reproduction.
That's not hate speech.
It's been now years since you've been discussion with John here on your blog, and I've in the past while on Opine. John has gone to great lengths to label you a person of hate and bigotry personally. It's tiredsome, and just mere bullying at this point.
It was bullying a long time ago Renee. He labelled Paul Melanson a bigot at his Blog as well. And Paul is one of the most gentle and charitable souls you could ever meet.
"Perhaps this is the real reason we keep polygamy out of the USA, so we can keep out the Muslims, hmm?"
So now you are arguing for polygamy John?
Please try not to insult all of my guests here.
Where did I say that Jay? ;)
I think another problem is the term hate speech is actually too broad. We should attempt to use language in clearer ways, so that when someone says a person is a racist, we know what that means, when someone is called an Anti-Catholic, we also know what that means, and we do not confuse Anti-Catholicism with Racism as they are separate prejudices. Likewise if John feels the need to label someone a homophobe, we confine that to specifics, and not excessively broaden the definition.
Expect the violence against Christians to escalate:
Prominent Gay British Politician Jokes about Killing Miss California for Her Opposition to Same-Sex "Marriage"
Calls her a "silly b**ch"
By John-Henry Westen and Hilary White
LONDON, April 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Alan Duncan, the UK's first openly-homosexual Conservative politician and the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons is rebuffing criticism for saying on a comedy show that he would kill Miss California, Carrie Prejean, for her remarks against homosexual "marriage." Prejean made the remarks during the recent Miss USA beauty pageant. (See coverage: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042103.html)
Mr. Duncan, on the BBC comedy news show "Have I Got News For You" on Friday, described Prejean as a "silly b**ch." He added, "If you read that Miss California has been murdered, you will know it was me, won't you?"
Other panellists on the comedy show expressed shock despite their support for same-sex "marriage." Katy Brand said, "That's a hell of a statement to be making on camera there, Alan." Paul Merton said, "For someone planning to be Home Secretary."
The Metropolitan Police have received a complaint from George Hargreaves, an outspokenly pro-family evangelical minister and the leader of the small political party, the Christian Party, whose members believe that homosexual activity is sinful.
Yesterday Hargreaves said, "Mr Duncan has crossed the line. A senior politician suggesting, even as a joke, that it is okay that Miss Prejean should be murdered for her evangelical Christian views is totally unacceptable.
"How can we stop gun and knife crime when the man who thinks he will be the next Home Secretary makes death threats?"
In later comments, Duncan continued to treat the incident as a joke. "Of course it was in jest. It is a comedy show after all. I'm sure Miss Prejean's very beautiful and that if we were to meet we would love each other. I have no plans to kill her. I'll send her a box of chocolates - unpoisoned," he told media.
A spokesman for the BBC said, "Alan Duncan's comment was not meant to be taken seriously and it did not go unchallenged. Its absurdity and unacceptability was [sic] highlighted by the other panellists."
George Pitcher, religion editor of the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph, wrote on Monday that the larger issue is that a senior Tory politician has said that he is opposed to the current legal definition of marriage in Britain.
"A union between a man and a woman. In current civil and ecclesiastical law that is how it is," he wrote. "So, it would seem that Mr. Duncan would want to put same-sex civil partnerships on the same civil and ecclesiastical legal footing as marriage. Is that Conservative Party policy and will Mr Duncan push for it if he becomes Home Secretary?"
Duncan, who is in a legal civil partnership with James Dunseath, is described as a "moderniser" in the Tory party and economically and socially libertarian in his political views. When Duncan announced in March 2008 that he would be entering into a homosexual civil partnership, Tory party leader David Cameron said, "I am absolutely delighted for Alan and James and wish them all the very best."
During the Miss America pageant, aired live on NBC, homosexual activist and celebrity gossip Perez Hilton, one of 13 telecast judges, asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"
Prejean answered, "I think it's great Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be - between a man and a woman."
Hilton later lambasted Prejean for her answer on his popular blog. He called her answer "the worst answer in pageant history." "She lost, not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage, she lost because she's a dumb b*tch," he said.
"If that girl would have won Miss USA, California, I would have gone up on stage, I sh*t you not, ... snatched that tiara off her head, and run out the door," said Hilton.
To express concerns to the Conservative party:
David Cameron,
House of Commons,
London, SW1A 0AA.
Email: camerond@parliament.uk
Does Alan Duncan's criticism of Carrie Prejean constitute hate speech Mr. Hosty? You wrote earlier, "I believe the laws apply equally to us all, and what is hate speech for one group is hate speech for another." Did this British politician cross a line? Why hasn't the SPLC labelled Perez Hilton as a hatemonger as they have Lou Dobbs?
You also wrote, "..[Perez] Hilton fits the term hate speech and I feel no need to defend his actions simply because he is gay." And yet, when cornered in the past about your attempts to unjustly portray those who are morally opposed to homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" as "bigots," you would conjure up Fred Phelps. Since you feel no need to defend Perez Hilton's actions "simply because he is gay," why do you expect us to answer for people like Phelps simply because they claim to be Christian?
In other words, you rightly refuse to lump all homosexual persons in the same category as Perez Hilton or Alan Duncan but you freely generalize when it suits your own interests, portraying any and all moral opposition to homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" as "bigotry."
This is precisely what convinces me that you are a Christianophobe.
John, if you do not wish to recognize my legal name change to Hosty-Grinnell simply refer to me as John and I won't feel you are deliberately trying to insult me. We can disagree respectfully, and how we behave towards each other speaks of us, not our opposition.
In short hate speech is intended to degrade through someone's distinctions, usually some type of liability, like ethnicity for example. Often comments are based in misinformation through either exaggeration or outright lies.
"All poor people smell like sour milk" is an example of hate speech geared towards class discrimination.
So when you take that understanding and apply it to what Perez Hilton said ("She's a stupid b%$#@") you can see no evidence that fits our definition. Hilton's words were wrong, and they were hateful, but they were not hate speech.
Alan Duncan's statement is another story, but again it does not fit the criteria of hate speech. I strongly oppose violence and in dealing with certain subjects I never make a joke along those lines. His words were hateful and show poor judgment.
You asked:
"Why hasn't the SPLC labelled Perez Hilton as a hatemonger as they have Lou Dobbs?"
From SPLC:
"All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."
You ask:
"Why do you expect us to answer for people like Phelps simply because they claim to be Christian?"
I don't think anyone is going to defend Phelps, it seems clear we can all agree his group fits the certification SPLC gives them.
However MassResistance.com is listed on the same website as also being a hate group for the very same reasons. That group is supported by Jay's website as well as readers like you, and that support creates your culpability.
Let's review the definition of bigot again so you can understand my usage of the word (From wikipedia.org):
"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset."
Merely opposing same sex marriage does not fit the definition of bigot, it takes more than that. A bigot doesn't just disagree with his neighbor's beliefs, he sees himself as better than the other person with whom he disagrees and is likely to dismiss all points made because of that intolerance.
MassResistance simply does not fit even your skewed definition of hate speech, certainly they do not even approach the level of Perez Hilton because they do not insult, and this is evidence of your intolerance. You posit a double standard, and have not shown the slightest evidence that MassResistence "sees [them]self as better than the other person with whom [t]he[y] [disagree]s".
Your definition of hate speech appears to be self centered, the proof being if someone takes offense, then that is proof of offense. You make it impossible to dialog.
Let's see what is said on the MassResistance.com website to see if you are correct.
On their banner:
"The citizens of Massachusetts have had enough! End judicial tyranny, homosexual "marriage", and homosexual activist recruitment of our children in the public schools! Preserve our Judeo-Christian heritage, the Culture of Life, and free speech! CAUTION: We deal openly and graphically with the Culture of Death. R-rated subject matter."
Here's the first thing I see within seconds of looking around:
"Our Massachusetts horror, Rep. Barney Frank, doesn't stop at homosexual activism."
"Assault on children in the Schools"
"Brutal fascist tactics against citizens"
The constant usage of the word "homosexual" is well known as derogatory in modern times and is akin to the usage of the word "nigger".
The usage of "quotation marks" around the word marriage are yet another way of showing disrespect to the GLBT community used by MassResistance.com.
I could go on and on citing examples of misinformation, lies, and just plain hatefulness, but if you are unwilling to admit the truth those examples will all be dismissed.
You can either admit it or you can deny it, but I doubt you don't see it. Obviously I am not alone in the opinion that MassResistance is a hate group otherwise we would not be having this conversation.
Saying my definition of hate speech is skewed is laughable. I asked at the begining of this post what your definition was, and I cited a verifiable third party source as my definition.
You want to discredit "my [your]" definition while not sharing one of your own. How is that logical?
John,
I gave an example of hate speech in this post, while you gave a definition of hate speech, but can't consistently use it.
First you said "I believe the laws apply equally to us all, and what is hate speech for one group is hate speech for another. Hilton fits the term hate speech and I feel no need to defend his actions simply because he is gay."
Then you said "So when you take that understanding and apply it to what Perez Hilton said ('She's a stupid b%$#@') you can see no evidence that fits our definition. Hilton's words were wrong, and they were hateful, but they were not hate speech."
So if "Hilton fits the term hate speech" how could his words "not [be] hate speech"? Or is this just some exercise in creating your own reality, where a thing can both be and not be simultaneously?
Honestly John, now you are claiming the "H word"? Sorry, the quotes are not meant to degrade, only to quote.
Mr. Hosty cites the following definition of what constitutes a hate group, a definition provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center:
"All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." But Paul Melanson made the following point at La Salette Journey:
"The Southern Poverty Law Center has included Mass Resistance in its list of hate groups because of the organization's opposition to homosexuality, an opposition which is rooted in both Divine Revelation and Natural Law. This is ridiculous on so many different levels. What is particularly ironic, however, is that Mass Resistance doesn't even meet the SPLC's definition of a hate group: "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." (Source: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp)...The American Heritage Dictionary provides us with an excellent definition [of immutable]: "Not subject or susceptible to change." But can one honestly suggest that homosexuality is immutable? Not according to the hard science: http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html
The best science tells us conclusively that homosexuality is not hard-wired. It's not immutable. Many have left the lifestyle - permanently. They could not have done so if the behavior was immutable.
Bottom line: things like skin color and ethnicity are immutable. Homosexuality is not.
"Homosexuality is not hardwired...whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."
"..there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive."
-Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA.
"A predisposition is not a predetermination. It allows more than ample room for choice (free will)." - Marie Tremblay
From La Salette Journey, more here:
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2008/09/further-scientific-proof-that.html
If you want an example of hate speech I give you John Ansley. Right after I remind people that my legal name is Hosty-Grinnell and give him a way out from showing direct hate and disrespect he goes back to showing it.
John, I will not talk to you if you are going to show me open hostility in this manner.
Jay, if you cannot stand up to open hatred then you are part of what's wrong with America. This is your blog, if you do not speak up here then you agree with Ansley's actions.
Your silence is construed as acceptance.
Once again, when he feels he has trapped himself in a corner with his own words, John Hosty refuses to acknowledge the truth but retreats into the use of smoke and mirrors to change the subject. But John Hosty posted comments here using the name John Hosty for the longest time. The fact that we do not recognize his "marriage" (how could we as Christians) or his desire to change his name, does not imply a lack of courtesy. Only a refusal to play games.
Mr. Hosty isn't really interested in dialogue. This is why he refuses to answer the difficult questions put to him or Jay's excellent comment citing his own statements which have been contradictory.
See here for more on real dialogue:
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-his-encyclical-letter-ecclesiam-suam.html
How petty. Remind me, this is supposed to be a Catholic website, is it not? While we disagree on key issues I have tried to be as respectful as I can while disagreeing with your points. In return I get open hostility, there is no longer any confusion about it like was attempted to be created in the past. You chose to hate.
You will know who comes in His name by the love they bring.
I will pray for all of you, this is indeed a very sad turn of events and very eye opening. I expected much better of you all.
Mr. Hosty wrote: "this is supposed to be a Catholic website, is it not? While we disagree on key issues I have tried to be as respectful as I can while disagreeing with your points. In return I get open hostility, there is no longer any confusion about it like was attempted to be created in the past. You chose to hate.
You will know who comes in His name by the love they bring.
I will pray for all of you, this is indeed a very sad turn of events and very eye opening. I expected much better of you all."
I have not seen any real respect from Mr. Hosty. He has frequently chosen to calumniate those he disagrees with by referring to them as bigots and homophobes. I say calumniate because he has not been able to offer a shred of evidence to support his accusations.
But while Mr. Hosty has frequently engaged in harsh rhetoric and false accusations, Catholics who visit this blog have demonstrated a remarkably calm and charitable dialogue and have refrained from returning Mr. Hosty's insults and outright fabrications.
Referring to Mr. Hosty as Mr. Hosty or John Hosty is a mark of respect and fully within the norms of etiquette. He therefore fails to make a case for hate by complaining that others will not use his "married" name. However, by frequently engaging in attempts to intimidate and by calumniating others, Mr. Hosty has demonstrated the very sort of hatred which he [falsely] attributes to others.
Sorry you feel that way John, but expressing a difference of opinion is not open or any other kind of hostility.
I was clear that if you decided not to use my legal last name that simply using "John" would be fine, but you willfully choose to continue showing me disrespect. That shows hate, not love.
Somewhere along the lines people have gotten confused and now hate has taken the place in your hearts where love should be. I pity you.
Caught the link at La Salette Journey. Paul cited Pope Benedict several weeks ago when covering this whole controversy:
"Pope Benedict XVI has said, in his book Truth and Tolerance, that: 'In the consciousness of mankind today, freedom is largely regarded as the greatest good there is, after which all other good things have to take their place. In legislation, artistic freedom and freedom of speech take precedence over every other moral value. Values that conflict with freedom, that could lead to its being restricted, appear as shackles, as 'taboos,' that is to say, as relics of archaic prohibitions and anxieties. Political action has to demonstrate that it furthers freedom. Even religion can make an impression only by depicting itself as a force for freedom for man and for mankind. In the scale of values with which man is concerned, to live a life worthy of humanity, freedom seems to be the truly fundamental value and to be the really basic human right of them all. The concept of truth, on the other hand, we greet rather with some suspicion: we recall how many opinions and systems have already laid claim to the concept of truth; how often the claim to truth in that way has been the means of limiting freedom. In addition there is the scepticism of fostered by natural science regarding anything that cannot be precisely explained or demonstrated: that all seems in the final analysis to be just subjective judgment, which cannot claim to be obligatory for people in general. The modern attitude to truth shows itself most succinctly in Pilate's words: What is truth? Anyone who claims to be serving truth with his life, and with his words and actions, must be prepared to be regarded as an enthusiast or a fanatic..' (p. 231-232).
Because Carrie Prejean has stood up for truth, because she has remained firm in her convictions, she will now be demonized by homosexual activists like Perez Hilton and regarded as a 'fanatic.' But intelligent and fair minds will recognize the real fanatic."
Isn't this precisely what this homosexual activist is doing? He wants to demonize any opposition to homosexuality, no matter how reasonable the persons may be, by lumping them together as bigots and intolerant fanatics.
Recently, a Catholic woman wrote Michael Brown and described an Elton John concert where the performer sang "Burn it down, burn it down" as an image of the Blessed Mother was shown on a big screen and turned upside down and set on fire.
This is real fanaticism. Real hate. If Catholics had a concert at World Youth Day and sang "Burn it down, burn it down" as images of homosexuals were turned upside down and set on fire, what would the main stream media reaction be? I mean, does anyone really doubt what the reaction would be? Why is Elton's hate performance any different?
Fear and hatred are not His way or His will. Peace and love are, but where is it shown here? All I ask is that you do not deliberately call me by a name that evokes disrespect. Is that too much to ask? John Ansley said he would not call me by my married name; that's fine by me. But when you deliberately continue to call me by a name I have already mentioned I find insulting because of the intentions behind it then you have to step up to the plate and accept responsibility for your actions. I assume I'm not talking to children here, am I?
The easy out of the situation is to use my first name, John, or not bother talking to me in the first place. No one is twisting your arms to debate me.
I of course expect people here to continue to use the "Mr. Hosty" moniker because you are trying to incite me. That speaks volumes about you and nothing of me; you own your actions, not I.
Mr. Hosty writes, "All I ask is that you do not deliberately call me by a name that evokes disrespect." But as Ellen has noted, "Referring to Mr. Hosty as Mr. Hosty or John Hosty is a mark of respect and fully within the norms of etiquette. He therefore fails to make a case for hate by complaining that others will not use his 'married' name."
If anyone has shown disrespect, it is Mr. Hosty. Although Catholics who post here have repeatedly explained to Mr. Hosty that our opposition to homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" is rooted in Divine Revelation and Natural Law, he has just as often labelled us as "bigots" and "homophobes."
Mr. Hosty's lack of honesty (as well as charity) will be clear to all who visit this blog.
John, your dishonesty will be something you will have to answer for as well as your hatred. For shame; you are a better person than your current behavior shows.
Is there not one single person reading this blog that will stand up for what's right?!
John, we have a disagreement on what is fundamentally right, therefore you should not expect us to undermine or deny our beliefs
John, I expect no such thing. I only ask that we show each other a proper amount of respect so we can continue debating each other respectfully.
Both sides do a fair amount of casting dispersions on each other, and you have my sincere apologies for anything you feel I've said that you find demeaning. I will in the future not to use the word bigot in reference to those I oppose.
My intention is to reach across the isle in friendship, but perhaps my guard is up too high.
When all is said and done we both know we as opposing groups must eventually come to the table and iron out what differences we can. I ask only of you the respect I am willing to give in return; thank you for calling me John instead of Mr. Hosty.
Sorry, I meant to say Jay instead of John.
Mr. Hosty writes, "I only ask that we show each other a proper amount of respect." But Catholics who post comments here have been nothing but respectful toward Mr. Hosty, even as he routinely hurls hateful labels as "bigot" and "homophobe" against those who respectfully disagree with his erroneous ideas.
He then writes, "Both sides do a fair amount of casting dispersions on each other." What Mr. Hosty meant to convey, I'm sure, was that both sides cast aspersions at each other. Dispersion is properly defined as "The act or process of dispersing." The word disperse, in turn, is defined thusly: "To break up and scatter in various directions." The word aspersion is defined thusly: "A calumnious report or remark, slander."
Therefore, Mr. Hosty has lied once again. No Catholic here has hurled any "calumnious report" against Mr. Hosty. However, Mr. Hosty has routinely engaged in this practice and has uncharitably labelled those who disagree with him on moral grounds as "bigots" and "homophobes" or as belonging to a "hate group."
Again, referring to Mr. Hosty as Mr. Hosty is entirely within the norms of etiquette. If Mr. Hosty disagrees, then the burden is on him to demonstrate how usage of his name constitutes "disrespect." Was he disrespecting himself when he used this name for several years when posting comments at this blog? What has changed? His "marriage"? Again, those of us who are Christian cannot - and will not (ever) - acknowledge his "marriage."
If Mr. Hosty wants to engage in sincere and authentic dialogue, he will have to work on his clarity of expression, his lack of charity, and his inability to be honest when communicating with others.
Ellen, you are engaging in pettiness; just stop it.
It must be very difficult for all of you to believe that someone who you disagree with could still love you in spite of the way you treat them.
I am disappointed in your behavior but it is not up to me to judge you. Through Christ I am called to treat others as brothers and sisters, bearing in mind that God made all of us, and that makes us all beautiful.
Be at peace Ellen, I am not your enemy. I am the friend whom you choose not to acknowledge. ;)
Ellen isn't the one lacking in peace Mr. Hosty. She isn't the one engaging in calumny while moaning and groaning because others refuse to acknowledge her homosexual "marriage"
No one here has accused you of being an enemy Mr. Hosty. But by unjustly labelling those of us who oppose same-sex "marriage" or homosexuality because of Divine Revelation and Natural Law, you treat us as an enemy.
And so it would seem that you need to practice what you preach to Ellen: be at peace. The authentic peace which can only come from living the Christ life and shunning mortal sin.
For peace with others is impossible unless we are first at peace with God. As St. Augustine so eloquently put it: "Our hearts are restless O Lord until they rest in Thee." (Confessions).
I pray Mr. Hosty that ou come to understand this maxim before it is too late.
In spite of all the deceptions it looks like people are getting the message; Maine just passed marriage equality.
Whoops there goes another rubber tree plant! ;)
It's not any kind of equality
Perhaps it makes no difference to you, but it makes a world of difference to those effected by it.
Even if all fifty states should decide to pass such laws, same-sex "marriage" will still be a fabrication. God is the Author of marriage. Not the State. Majority consensus is often wrong. Watch "A Man for all Seasons" and ask yourself who was right about King Henry's "marriage": Thomas More or the kangaroo court which sentenced him to death because he would not - could not - in good conscience, recognize the illicit "marriage."
More has been raised to the altars of the Church. Where do you suppose are those who opposed Christ's Church and sentenced More to death?
I should expect as much from you Paul, it took 300 years for the Church to admit it's mistake with Galileo... 300 years. Part of the problem is people who refuse to admit there is a problem that needs correcting. People like you who just refuse to learn.
The Church is not infallible and God has not stopped speaking. Anyone who thinks they need not learn and grow is doomed to history's errors.
This is why God asked us to make Love our law, so our hearts would find a way around new troubles that we come across. There is no "us" v. "them", there is only a "we". Will it take another 300 years to learn this?
John, it's not only your vocabulary which needs work, it's your knowledge of Church history. The following is from the September 2006 edition of The Catalyst, the publication of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights:
"There is much confusion regarding Galileo's story. The astronomer is most famous for presenting as fact Nicholas Copernicus' theory that the earth, and other heavenly bodies, revolve around the sun. The belief at the time, based on Scripture, was that all heavenly bodies revolved around the earth, and the earth was the center of the universe.
Some of the popular myths about Galileo are: he was ordered by the Church to give up his scientific study, he was guilty of heresy, he was tortured and imprisoned, and he knew that the Copernican theory was correct and that the church was wrong.
The textbooks we analyzed do nothing to dispel these myths. Prentice Hall's Discovering Our Past: Medieval and Early Modern Times has this to say about Galileo and his teaching that all heavenly objects did not revolve around earth: "Church officials warned Galileo to give up his study of the heavens" (p. 572).
The Church did not, in fact, warn Galileo to give up his studies. Pope Urban VIII actually encouraged Galileo to continue his studies, but to present the Copernican theory of the universe as a theory, not as a fact.
McDougal Littell's World History: Medieval and Early Modern Times has this to say on the subject: "But Galileo knew he was right, and so did other scientists" (p. 504).
Galileo may have thought he was right, but there was in fact no scientific way at the time to prove his conclusion on the Copernican theory.
Prentice Hall's book also says: "Under threat of torture, the 70-year-old scientist denied his belief in a sun-centered universe. Galileo is said to have left his trial muttering, 'And yet, it moves'" (p. 573).
Galileo was never tortured, and the quote attributed to him was actually made up by a writer 125 year after the trial.
Books published by Prentice Hall, Glencoe McGraw Hill, and Teachers' Curriculum Institute write that Galileo was tried for heresy. The following passage is from Teachers' Curriculum Institute's History Alive!: The Medieval World and Beyond: "At Galileo's trial, church leaders accused him of heresy" (p. 393).
Galileo was not convicted of heresy. The astronomer was condemned for defying a papal council's 1616 edict that it may be heresy (although the 1616 council did not actually use the word "heresy") to teach that the sun was the center of the universe.
Although not contained in the texts we analyzed, another popular myth regarding Galileo is that the Church admitted only in the 1990's that Galileo was right. The Church gave Galileo's printed works its imprimatur within 100 years of the astronomer's death, well before science was capable of proving the Copernican theory. It was not until 150 years later that science was able to provide such proof. A pontifical academy's report in 1992 only stated that theologians failed to understand that the Bible's teachings on the universe were not literal.
People who wish to discredit the Church's other teachings (on abortion, female ordination, gay rights, etc.) will use the myths about Galileo as examples of where the Church went wrong. The fact that these myths continue to appear in textbooks is cause for concern."
So you see Mr. Hosty, once again you have embarassed yourself.
Looks like another state has recognized marriage equality! Yeah NH!
Two in one day, that's what I call a groundswell of support! ;)
Even an overwhelming majority cannot change reality. If ten people climb to the top of the Empire State Building, nine of these decide that the law of gravity is archaic and jump off the building, have they altered reality. No. They have committed suicide. It is the same in the moral realm. A majority might decide to reject God's Commandments and His Divine Law. But the reality is that this majority will stand before the Lord and will be judged by Him.
I have an undying faith in the goodness of all humankind John, and that faith tells me love will win out over fear.
I'll keep my door open to all of you but now I am going to make some time to celebrate. One day perhaps we can sit together and laugh that we were once at odds.
I have an undying faith in the Word of God which tells me that only God is good and that Original Sin has wreaked havoc on mankind. I believe love will triumph and that all those who refuse to love (i.e., obey God's Commandments while remaining impenitent in a state of mortal sin) will suffer an eternity of self-will: Hell.
God will give you what you want Mr. Hosty. If self-will is what you want, self-will is what you'll get. The Good God will respect our free will.
John,
This is about truth, so unless you change your mind and recognize the fallacy and disordered nature of same-sex marriage, then we will not one day sit together and laugh that we were once at odds. Considering your self-appointed monitoring of obscure blogs that follow the Natural Law I have my reservations, but I'll wait prayerfully and patiently for you to harden not your heart any more.
As at the day of Meribah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologies_by_Pope_John_Paul_II
John Hosty is a liar and intimidating Christian hater.
He has nothing better to do than whip up hatred
Things are all starting to fit together nicely here. I would expect to see Patriot here. ;)
Post a Comment